Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 577 (KER)

HARI BALAKRISHNAN v. SALES TAX OFFICER

2011-06-14

S.SIRI JAGAN

body2011
JUDGMENT The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act. For the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the assessments made were modified by the appellate authority, consequent to which, the petitioner was entitled to refund of certain excess amounts paid. That was not refunded. For the year 2003-2004, an amount Rs. 2675/- was paid in excess for the General Sales Tax assessment and an amount of Rs. 1,09,258/- was paid in excess for the Central Sales Tax assessment. The petitioner was told that the same would be adjusted against the tax due for the year 2004-2005. When assessment for 2004-2005 was completed, an amount of Rs. 5,799/- was found to be due for refund under the KGST Act and an amount of Rs. 62,756/- was found to be due for refund under the Central Sales Tax Act. As per Ext. P1 appellate order for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, an amount of Rs. 47,536/- was refundable to the petitioner. Altogether, according to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 4,01,679/- is refundable to the petitioner, which has not been refunded so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- is also due for refund making the total amount of Rs. 4,51,679/-. The petitioner submits that despite several requests and reminders, the said amount has not been refunded to the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein the claim for refund is not denied. But the stand taken is that after adjustment, as stated in the counter affidavit, the amount for refund was computed as Rs. 2,06,563/-, from which, an amount of Rs. 67,582/- has to be adjusted towards tax for the year 2002-2003 with interest. The petitioner would take the stand that the amounts shown in the counter affidavit are wrong. He would submit that several payments made, which are stated to have been given credit to, have not actually been given credit to. It is further submitted that after retaining the money belonging to the petitioner, the State cannot recover interest on the amounts due from the petitioner to the State. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. He would submit that several payments made, which are stated to have been given credit to, have not actually been given credit to. It is further submitted that after retaining the money belonging to the petitioner, the State cannot recover interest on the amounts due from the petitioner to the State. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I do not think that it would be proper for me to decide the question as to what is the exact amount due to the petitioner, which is a question of fact, which has to be ascertained based on the challans regarding payment, adjustment etc. Therefore, I am inclined to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the quantum of amount to be refunded to the petitioner. However, the admitted amount of Rs. 1,38,981/- shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent shall take up the dispute regrading the balance claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that the State cannot recover interest on the assessed amount for the assessment year 2002-2003, since at that relevant time amounts due to the petitioner were actually retained by the State. Therefore, no interest shall be charged on Rs. 67582/-. The writ petition is disposed of as above.